Paris Climate Summit

[dialamah]

Except those links don't address the endless attempts to link random weather events to AGW. Your first link fails to mention that the magnitude of warming has been a lot less than was predicted so they are only really claiming that scientists correctly guessed the outcome of a coin toss which is not hard to do.

I used to think like you until I actually spent time digging into the basis for the various claims being made and have found them to be quite underwhelming.

Well, I'll continue to hope you are indeed correct.

[dialamah]

Put all the bafflegab aside - as I said,if the seas are rising to any extent - you'll see the results in the Florida keys - which are actually lower than Tuvalu. Until you see the seas washing over the keys, you can bet that anything going on in Tuvalu is caused by something other than "Global Warming". Agreed?

Possibly you didn't read the links, which pointed out that while Tuvalu isn't "sinking" right now, there are other effects of climate change that are already impacting them.

I'm happy to agree that Florida will be one of the first places to be underwater.

[Keepitsimple]

Possibly you didn't read the links, which pointed out that while Tuvalu isn't "sinking" right now, there are other effects of climate change that are already impacting them.

I'm happy to agree that Florida will be one of the first places to be underwater.

Then we're reached some common ground.....and I'm happy with that.....

[bush_cheney2004]

The U.S. government is spending about $8 billion dollars to restore drained wetlands and waterways in Florida. I hope that Paris does not slow down the restoration of Florida to its "natural" state. Canadians may have to winter elsewhere.

[TimG]

Possibly you didn't read the links, which pointed out that while Tuvalu isn't "sinking" right now, there are other effects of climate change that are already impacting them.

What the links said is storm surges "might" impact them. That makes it a hypothetical rather than an actual problem. Especially since low lying islands have always been at risk from storm surges it is not clear what is actually changing. Edited October 27, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

The U.S. government is spending about $8 billion dollars to restore drained wetlands and waterways in Florida. I hope that Paris does not slow down the restoration of Florida to its "natural" state. Canadians may have to winter elsewhere.

Why spend all that money? GW caused SL rise will do it for free.

[dialamah]

What the links said is storm surges "might" impact them. That makes it a hypothetical rather than an actual problem. Especially since low lying islands have always been at risk from storm surges it is not clear what is actually changing.

I'm going to go with what the people who are actually there think is happening and they seem to think it's related to climate change.

[On Guard for Thee]

I'm going to go with what the people who are actually there think is happening and they seem to think it's related to climate change.

Good idea. All the denier crowd seem to be able to come up with are some minor differences in timelines of impact between various well qualified scientists who agree it is certainly occurring. Here's a funny thing, I used to work for Exxon-Mobil, and they certainly acknowledged global warming, coe to think of it, why wouldn't they?

[TimG]

I'm going to go with what the people who are actually there think is happening and they seem to think it's related to climate change.

Science is about analysis and facts - not media spin which is what the people you quote were engaging in. What they said is there is a hypothetical concern that larger/more frequent storms would be catastrophic but there is no evidence supporting the idea that storms will be more frequent (they should get less frequent according to the theory). That said there is a theory that the less frequent storms will be more powerful (10% or so) but given how vulnerable these islands already you can't really argue that this is a new problem created by warming.

[On Guard for Thee]

Science is about analysis and facts - not media spin which is what the people you quote were engaging in. What they said is there is a hypothetical concern that larger/more frequent storms would be catastrophic but there is no evidence supporting the idea that storms will be more frequent (they should get less frequent according to the theory). That said there is a theory that the less frequent storms will be more powerful (10% or so) but given how vulnerable these islands already you can't really argue that this is a new problem created by warming.

Exactly. The new problem is the sea level rise.

[TimG]

Exactly. The new problem is the sea level rise.

Except storms are part of the process that ensures the islands to rise with sea level.

[On Guard for Thee]

Except storms are part of the process that ensures the islands to rise with sea level.

That's debatable, but as i pointed out previously, it's not going to help Florida, for instance.

[waldo]

the following posts all referencing the same study... notwithstanding the statement within one of those articles that reads, "Both Dr Kench and Dr Brook and scientists agree further rises in sea levels pose a significant danger to the livelihoods of people living in Tuvalu, Kirabati and the Federated States of Micronesia." ... I've offered comment below:

Except there is no plausible evidence linking these things to climate change given the other, more plausible, explainations. In the case of tuvalu the it is an atoll which basically rises with sea level so any problems are related to local problems such as over population and construction in zones that should be kept free because of the geography of atolls.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-06-03/pacific-islands-growing-not-sinking/851738

I realize that many alarmist treat these claims as the word of god but I took the time to actually look into the scientific basis and in almost all cases there is no scientific justification the religious beliefs.

It's true: http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2015/04/27/G36555.1.abstract

You've mentioned Tuvalu more than once so I imagine it really concerns you. Don't fret about it. The Tuvaluans are not sinking but the President of Tuvalu has been on a soapbox to declare his population to be the first Climate Refugees - and thereby extort money from sucker donors.... The emperical evidence has been drowned out by the hysterical cries of environmental activists - but here's some reading for you....because if you've been duped on the most prevalent "fib" - you might want to take a closer look at some of the others......

Article One gives the facts as they were in 2010 - but the story was completely drowned out by the Climate Refugee trend... Article Two is from 2015 and gives grudging acceptance to the fact that Tuvalu and others are not sinking.......

Article One: http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=4236

Article Two: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27639-small-atoll-islands-may-grow-not-sink-as-sea-levels-rise/

the study area was within a subset of the central Pacific involving a relatively small number of atoll islands - the study authors caution extending the findings to a broader coverage area level... in that regard, of course, sea-level rise varies considerably across the complete ocean area, notwithstanding other localized impacts related to the preponderance of tropical storms/typhoons, etc.

even taking the study's own data, against the generalized 120mm of sea-level rise in the study area, 14% of the atolls showed a decrease in total land area. Equally, another 43% of the atolls remained 'relatively stable' in land area... which only means the respective coral reef growth managed to keep pace with that associated 120mm sea-level rise. That "keeping pace" presumes upon healthy coral growth balanced against that existing sea-level rise rate... if the rate increases, the coral growth may not be able to keep up. Equally, there are other climate change related stresses that directly affect coral growth... coral life, for that matter: a warming ocean, ocean acidification, bleaching and (possible) changes in storm frequency/intensity. All these factors weigh heavily on whether atoll island nations will "remain afloat"... will be able to potentially adapt, if even partially.

additionally, the referenced study analysis was based entirely on area size comparisons... vertical growth/height was not measured questioning whether the study suggests any change to the vulnerability of atoll islands to sea level rise. Per the study authors:

This study did not measure vertical growth of the island surface nor does it suggest there is any change in the height of the islands. Since land height has not changed the vulnerability of the greater part of the land area of each island to submergence due to sea level rise is also unchanged and these low-lying atolls remain immediately and extremely vulnerable to inundation or sea water flooding.

.

[cybercoma]

A lot more general climate change discussion than summit discussion going on here.

[waldo]

A lot more general climate change discussion than summit discussion going on here.

apparently my posts directly related to the OP subject were met by the quite regular routine 'fake-skeptics' often play out... they avoid/ignore discussing UNFCC COP pursuits by attempting to impugn the related climate change subject/science - attempting to cast doubt on the need for treaties and related emission reduction initiatives in the first place.

[cybercoma]

Yeah, I get it, but let's have a thread to discuss the climate science that's separate from discussing the summit. I don't mind revisiting the science here once the summit happens and there's some policy to discuss. Until then, you guys are just spinning around on the usual merry-go-round of sniping and talking past each other.

[Triple M]

I'm all for openness but there has to be a better way of consulting than flying first ministers and leaders over. I guess that is a smaller criticism in perspective of a important summit, but the precedent going forward is concerning.

[dialamah]

I'm all for openness but there has to be a better way of consulting than flying first ministers and leaders over. I guess that is a smaller criticism in perspective of a important summit, but the precedent going forward is concerning.

Perhaps in the context of beginning to develop a working relationship with the provinces, and to develop a plan with the provinces, it makes sense?

[-1=e^ipi]

Exactly. The new problem is the sea level rise.

0.5 m over the next century. Oh the horror! *sarcasm*

Edited October 27, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[Smeelious]

0.5 m over the next century. Oh the horror! *sarcasm*

I assume you mean the IPCC's 2007 calculations. Current Calculations are hedging more on 3m (though that is the high end).

"Most experts foresee an increase of at least 0.6 of a degree Fahrenheit before the middle of the next century. Seas would rise as higher temperatures made water expand much as they do sidewalks: thermal expansion has already raised sea levels four inches since the turn of the century. Polar ice caps might also partially melt. All this would lift the waters one to four feet by 2050 and threaten the homes of 25 million to 40 million people worldwide

http://www.global-warming-forecasts.com/sea-levels-map.php

[On Guard for Thee]

0.5 m over the next century. Oh the horror! *sarcasm*

Double that and you are closer to what climate scientists are saying. Doesn't sound like much maybe, but if you live in Tuvalu, the Maldives, or anywhere near the Florida coast it could be devastating.

[-1=e^ipi]

Double that and you are closer to what climate scientists are saying. Doesn't sound like much maybe, but if you live in Tuvalu, the Maldives, or anywhere near the Florida coast it could be devastating.

- The ability to live below sea level using sea walls has existed for a long time as shown by Holland.

- Technology to build up islands exists and China is employing greatly to increase their claim to the Spratly Islands.

- It's a matter of costs and benefits. To put things in perspective, Canada is 384000 times the size of Tuvalu. Even if you hypothetically lost Tuvulu, you don't think gains in Canada due to longer growing seasons, CO2 fertilization effect, more precipitation, etc. can't more than offset that?

[Smeelious]

- The ability to live below sea level using sea walls has existed for a long time as shown by Holland.

- Technology to build up islands exists and China is employing greatly to increase their claim to the Spratly Islands.

- It's a matter of costs and benefits. To put things in perspective, Canada is 384000 times the size of Tuvalu. Even if you hypothetically lost Tuvulu, you don't think gains in Canada due to longer growing seasons, CO2 fertilization effect, more precipitation, etc. can't more than offset that?

Gains in Canada would be offset by losses in more equatorial countries. And yeah, it's apparently OK for a country to be wiped off the map so Canada can have a longer growing season...Oh my bad, it's just in the loss column on the excel sheet. No big.

anyway;

The results suggested that Alberta would benefit the most from increased summer and winter precipitation. However, eastern Saskatchewan and Manitoba would experience little change or smaller increases. Since there is a growing-season moisture deficit in much of the Prairie region, even slight declines in the availability of moisture could significantly harm crop production.

These would include increased weed growth due to higher levels of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and an increased prevalence of pests and pathogens in livestock and crops. The increased range, frequency and severity of insect and disease infestations are also potential impacts.

Warmer summers could also cause problems for livestock producers related to heat-wave deaths. This is especially true in poultry operations. Other impacts could be reduced milk production and reduced reproduction in the dairy industry, as well as, reduced weight gain in beef cattle.

[/size]

http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/science-and-innovation/agricultural-practices/climate/future-outlook/impact-of-climate-change-on-canadian-agriculture/?id=1329321987305

[On Guard for Thee]

- The ability to live below sea level using sea walls has existed for a long time as shown by Holland.

- Technology to build up islands exists and China is employing greatly to increase their claim to the Spratly Islands.

- It's a matter of costs and benefits. To put things in perspective, Canada is 384000 times the size of Tuvalu. Even if you hypothetically lost Tuvulu, you don't think gains in Canada due to longer growing seasons, CO2 fertilization effect, more precipitation, etc. can't more than offset that?

Yes people in northern latitudes such as Canada would see some increase in growing season. Now how about Mexico?

[-1=e^ipi]

Gains in Canada would be offset by losses in more equatorial countries. And yeah, it's apparently OK for a country to be wiped off the map so Canada can have a longer growing season...

It's a matter of costs and benefits. You need to consider both to determine the best policy response.

Yes people in northern latitudes such as Canada would see some increase in growing season.

Well I'm glad you finally admit that there are benefits. Was that so hard?